Depressing topic...BUT...

[Leptonyx]

The indirect benefits of zoos to conservation/research are far greater than any zoos financial budget.

True (and I never meant my comments to be interpreted as "conservaiton/research provides no benfits", my apologies if it did)- I was only trying to convey that irrespective of how beneficial zoos are to conservation and research; unfortunately they are goverened as much by financial limitations as any other organization (otherwise zoos could just buy out all the native habitat, restore them, push full steam ahead and save all species, and we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place!). Hopefully that came out sounding right..hopefully I'm interpreteing your comment right?

 

[Jurek7]

thinking about the other efforts it could compromise, etc. In either case I've never seen a zoo budget and how much they allocate towards conservation and research

It comes to the common cliche which is mainly wrong: that there is some kind of fixed amount of conservation effort, and giving effort to one animal automatically denies it to another.

In case of zoos, the only clear situation is space for captive breeding plans. However, here I never saw a truly endangered species dropped for lack of space. Normally, more common species are chipped out and the space goes to most endangered ones in the group.

In practice, this "fixed pool of conservation money" is not true elsewhere. New projects attract new sponsors, popular animals generate money and reserves for less known ones, big part of money comes from local funds, so money spend in eg. Australia could not be freed to save animals in eg. Brazil and vice versa.

 

[Leptonyx]

It comes to the common cliche which is mainly wrong: that there is some kind of fixed amount of conservation effort, and giving effort to one animal automatically denies it to another.

In case of zoos, the only clear situation is space for captive breeding plans. However, here I never saw a truly endangered species dropped for lack of space. Normally, more common species are chipped out and the space goes to most endangered ones in the group.

In practice, this "fixed pool of conservation money" is not true elsewhere. New projects attract new sponsors, popular animals generate money and reserves for less known ones, big part of money comes from local funds, so money spend in eg. Australia could not be freed to save animals in eg. Brazil and vice versa.

Haha I owe you again Jurek7; thanks for clarifying that! Definetely had the wrong idea on the "conservation money" issue; and if space is the only problem then I'd like to switch my original view (to keeping endangered captive breeding programs!) Thanks again- here's to hoping the world cleans up soon

 

[mark77]

My comment was more about how potentially seeing any animal in captivity can inspire someone at whatever level to conserve wild animals. I know of many people working in / donating towards conservation projects whose intial spark of interest was a visit to a zoo as a child. The indirect value of this is far greater than any zoos financial conservation budget.

 

[Leptonyx]

My comment was more about how potentially seeing any animal in captivity can inspire someone at whatever level to conserve wild animals. I know of many people working in / donating towards conservation projects whose intial spark of interest was a visit to a zoo as a child. The indirect value of this is far greater than any zoos financial conservation budget.

Its a very good point mark77; and one I wish I'd considered before handing in my application (which was done Thursday afternoon....)

I had the "EUREKA" moment in finding out what was bothering me about keeping endangered species in captivity (sorry I had to share it!) in discovering that in answering these questions I was drawing from my wildlife rehabilitation experience (which apparently is VERY different than zoos!). In short funding is ALWAYS an issue (Do I spend $200 on a single surgery to save one bird; or do I use that money to buy food for the next 2 months?); and so it's weird for me to step out of that mindset where you CAN save more than one animal and not have to make sacrifices for the greater good. Similarly (and I stated this in my essay!) I draw too many parallels with the view of keeping endangered species in captivity (which can't be returned to the wild), and the same general members of the public I've criticized for taking wildlife species into their homes and making them as pets (the human-imprinted/habituated ones that can't be returned to the wild either). It's possible maybe the situation hits too close to home and considering it makes me very much aware of what a hypocrite I am

I DID incorporate some views brought up in this discussion into the final essay; especially the idea of the future being a brighter place/improving technology/increasing interest in the environmental movement/increasing funding (Jurek7 I hope you don't mind but I cited you as a "friend" and not by your ZooChat name ), and I made sure to include at the very end that I was not set in these beliefs and that I was continually searching for answers to this question.

Anyways just wanted to take a final opportunity to thank everyone who posted (esp. Jurek7)- the final product I sent in was definetely more well-rounded, and not as dark/depressing/"short-sighted" as the original essay I had composed! Cheers!